Three minute radio interview of Malcolm Roberts commenting on Climate Change Chief Commissioner Tim Flannery's Monday, 14th May 2012 radio interview and claims.
On Tuesday evening, October 12th, 2010 after Tim's Gold Coast book launch Malcolm personally challenged Tim Flannery to a public debate on (1) the UN IPCC - the basis of government climate policy, (2) empirical climate science the only sound basis for climate policy, (3) the economic (and other) impacts of taxing and 'trading' carbon dioxide. In the company of two representatives of Tim's publisher and three of Malcolm's friends, Tim's response was a blank stare and silence.

Report on government-funded corruption of climate science is here together with appendices:www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html
Prepared separately and independently by Malcolm Roberts in response to a request by ABC journalist Steve Austin prior to Malcolm joining The Galileo Movement.

A summary of UN IPCC and Australian corruption of climate science is available here.

A summary of basic facts on Carbon Dioxide, CO2 with supporting material and references is available here. Please see two short pages, 1 and 2.

1. Corrupting the Science:

Definition:

To corrupt something is to remove its integrity. It can then not be trusted.
Whether deliberate or unintentional, the loss of trust and integrity leaves something corrupt.
eg, corrupted data on a computer; work riddled with errors; fraud; implied false claims, statements or mistakes.

Corruption can be deliberate to mislead people or unintentional and innocently based on falsehoods or errors by others.

Such distortions are rife in reports produced by the UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) and in comments by prominent officials in the UN IPCC and/or UN Environmental Program (UNEP).

Yet the government and the Greens say that reports by the UN IPCC are the basis of their climate policies.

From documents and evidence, it seems the UN IPCC and UNEP have systemically and systematically corrupted science.

Climate science has been distorted and corrupted by prominent Australian academics such as Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, David Karoly, Will Steffen, Matthew England, Andy Pitman, Kurt Lambeck and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

Agencies funded by government such as CSIRO have failed to produce real-world evidence of global warming caused by human production of carbon dioxide. Yet their glossy brochures on climate seem designed to mislead.

ALP MP's during the 2007 election campaign and in government since then have corrupted climate science. These include comments by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Greg Combet, Peter Garrett and Penny Wong. And in wild alarming yet unfounded comments by spokespeople such as Tanya Plibersek.

The Greens, led by comments from Christine Milne and Bob Brown have distorted and corrupted climate science.

Please see below for a more detailed definition of corruption, lies, fraud, treason. If we are not correct, we welcome correction.

Holding government and opposition accountable

Letter to Greg Hunt, Opposition spokesperson for Climate Change, reconfirming corruption of climate science by UN IPCC, Australian government, government agencies and prominent academics funded by government. Reveals recent misrepresentations and public falsehoods stated by Professor Will Steffen, sole climate science 'Expert Adviser' to the government's Multi Party Climate Change Committee. The MPCCC recommended that parliament pass legislation to tax carbon dioxide. Will Steffen's own words reveal that the MPCCC was apparently misled and that it's recommendation was based on his advice alone. Further, MPCCC member Rob Oakeshott, MP implies that he did not rely on Will Steffen's advice.

New publicly available data on climate alarm

The Galileo Movement was recently advised that a collection of material has been publicly available in recent weeks at the site:
http://Tome22.info

The data has been gathered by a small independent voluntary group asking basic questions and challenging people spreading unfounded climate alarm. They use modern computing methods to transform large amounts of obscure data into formats of more use to logical and inquisitive readers. They can now counter a key UN trick of burying politicians and journalists in massive amounts of jumbled text and jargon so people choose to read only deceptive summaries. Now the group has simple, accurate methods revealing the fraud at the core of misrepresentations by UN and government.

Did the ANU's Will Steffen mislead Julia Gillard's Multi Party Climate Change Committee and Tony Windsor, Christine Milne, Greg Combet? Summary available here for you to decide.

Key points are:

1. Government Climate Commissioner and Director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute professor Will Steffen seems to have misled the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC). Check and decide for yourself.

This is significant because, quote: "The Prime Minister and Minister Combet have announced the establishment of the new Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to investigate options for implementing a carbon price and to help build consensus on how Australia will tackle climate change." This is the body that decided to push a tax on carbon dioxide.http://www.climatechange.gov.au/media/whats-new/climate-change-committee.aspx

Here's a critique by real-world scientists of Will Steffen's slideshow presentation to the Multi Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC). He is the MPCCC's sole Expert Advisor on climate science appointed to advise the MPCCC.PDFPowerpoint

It seems clear: real-world scientists prove that in the process of making its decision recommending a tax on carbon dioxide, the MPCCC was unscientifically misled.

How could Will Steffen be so wrong? How could the MPCCC and government be so wildly misled by Will Steffen? Why is parliament not asking questions about this?

2. Rob Oakeshott, MP and member of the MPCCC has been advised that the MPCCC appears to have been seriously misled.

3. Grants to various bodies from the Department of Climate Change during the years 2009-2011.

These are in addition to grants from other government departments and grants in earlier years. This is big business for academics, government agencies, businesses and others willing to endorse human causation of climate variability - despite having no scientific proof.

Various grants almost $200 million.
Recipients include CSIRO, Australian Academy of Science, Bureau of Meteorology, overseas governments, various businesses, local government, universities, ...

Grants to universities total over $26 million.

IPCC related grants listed total almost $3 million.

Included are the following totals:
CSIRO $22 million
Bureau of Meteorology $9 million
Australian Carbon Trust Ltd over $100 million

Yet despite this and much more spent by government on global warming there is no evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.

4. UN IPCC's processes and procedures provide no confidence in UN IPCC reports, the basis of government climate policy.

The international Inter-Academy Council reviewed the IPCC's processes and procedures disgraced by the Climategate scandal. So critical is the Council's report (August 2010), it's impossible for anyone to know which IPCC statements, if any, can be believed. There can be no confidence at all in the IPCC's latest report, 2007.

Yet the Council's Executive Summary was not consistent in tone and content with the report's body. The Executive Summary appears to violate the Council's own guidelines.

One of the two monitors who should have enforced the IAC's guideline on the consistency of the executive summary was Kurt Lambeck, former President of the Australian Academy of Science. He's in the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute. Its Director is Will Steffen.

For whom do many UN IPCC 'scientists' work? Who pays many of them? Follow the money at this link. WWF paid some prominent UN IPCC authors and reviewers.

Listen to hydrologist Professor Stewart Franks contradicting the key claim made by David Karoly in a glossy booklet written by David. The glossy booklet was apparently written for WWF, paid for by WWF and published by WWF.
Stewart Franks' interview is here.
David Karoly's booklet published by WWF is available here.
David holds an appointment as a professor of Meteorology. Yet he has no undergraduate qualifications in meteorology.

David has been a prominent and influential UN IPCC Lead Author (2001 report), Review Editor (2007 report) and writer of the draft Summary for Policy Makers given to national governments and media (2007). Significantly, David's chapter in 2001 and the equivalent chapter in 2007 are each the sole chapter in those reports attributing global warming to human production of carbon dioxide. David Karoly was prominent in both. See below.

Each of those chapters is the core of the UN IPCC's 2001 and 2007 claim respectively. Each is the basis for the government's and Greens' climate policies. That's all the government has. Yet neither chapter contains any specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence proving that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. The government's policy is baseless. Has the government been had?

5. Media coverage of climate science and corruption is weak

On global warming, The Australian newspaper, commercial radio and the Ten TV Network provide some effort toward balance in their reporting of climate science. The government-owned ABC Radio, TV and Internet Networks are pathetically biased as advocates of the government position. As in our view, is the Fairfax media.

Even with The Australian newspaper's proud record of revealing government waste, one of its journalists presents an unfair, unfounded and unbalanced attack on a dedicated scientist. Decide for yourself here - letter to Mike Steketee.

Despite the massive systemic and systematic pervasive corruption of climate science, and The Australian's balanced approach to airing sceptic views, The Australian's editorial position contradicts empirical science in favour of carbon dioxide 'trading'. Letter to Chris Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief, The Australian newspaper.

How the WWF infiltrated the UN IPCC

WWF and Greenpeace campaign material made its way into the UN IPCC's latest report (2007) to national governments and media. The Himalayan glacier scandal exposed yet another bogus UN IPCC claim and the UN IPCC's reliance on material traceable to Greenpeace and WWF. Yet the UN IPCC chairman repeatedly falsely claimed 100% reliance on peer-reviewed science.

In October 2010, Malcolm Roberts was one of five speakers in a public forum in Brisbane. During the forum he challenged Kellie Caught to a debate on global warming. At the time Kellie was WWF's Australian Manager for Climate Change Policy. She quickly declined the offer to debate.

At the same forum Malcolm challenged Larissa Waters, Greens senator for Queensland and Christine Milne to a debate. Larissa immediately declined.

So much for the Greens' claim of being open to consultation.

Since the inception of this web site, The Galileo Movement has offered to debate advocates of the supposition that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. We have tried to organise debates. Whenever approached by potential organisers of a debate we've immediately agreed to debate. Yet organisers cannot find anyone to debate us.

That's a common problem for sceptics world-wide. Advocates of human warming avoid debate. No one more so than Al Gore despite offers to pay his huge speaking fee of well over $100,000. Of what is Al afraid?

How about Greenpeace?

Greenpeace is enmeshed in the UN IPCC's activities. Greenpeace's founders no longer see Greenpeace as the genuine environmental protector that it was in its early days. They say Greenpeace is now a discredited ideologically driven political organisation.
Watch interviews of Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founder, disavowing himself from Greenpeace.

Why does The Australian Academy of Science endorse the UN IPCC and falsely imply CO2 produced by humans controls global temperature and climate when it has no such evidence as proof?

Read correspondence with The Australian Academy of Science. The Academy implies humans control global temperature and climate yet has no specific scientific evidence proving its claim. Read Malcolm Roberts' letters and check the links yourself. The Academy has some serious questions to answer. Why aren't our politicians, paid by taxpayers, getting anywhere on this issue? Are they trying?

Communication with academics claiming humans control global climate:

Malcolm Roberts has communicated many times with David Karoly, a Lead Author for the sole chapter claiming warming attributed to human production of carbon dioxide in the IPCC's 2001 report (chapter 12). For example, on 25th January 2011.

David Karoly was a Review Editor of the sole equivalent chapter in the UN IPCC's latest report in 2007.

Malcolm Roberts provides a summary based on his experience of David's public comments, David's lack of scientifically measured real-world evidence of human causation of global warming and David's failure to address certain issues in their correspondence.

Letter to Professor Lesley Hughes of Macquarie University. Professor Hughes is a member of Julia Gillard's Climate Commission.
Note that the email address given in the letter should be malcolmr@conscious.com.au
Her bold statement contradicts science and Nature.

Annotated transcript of ABC-TV interview of Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. This transcript formed part of a complaint to the ABC and to the University of Queensland Senate. Professor Hoegh-Guldberg is a marine biologist promoting himself as an expert on climate. He too contradicts real-world climate science and apparently science in his own field of marine biology.

Email to Professor Matthew England. Professor England is a mathematician. He too contradicts real-world science yet promotes himself as a climate expert. He failed to provide evidence as proof of his claims. Based on his response, it seems he misunderstands the concept of causation in science.

Email and Registered post letter to Will Steffen. No response was received yet Will Steffen was quoted in the media as stating there was "no doubt" about his claim. There is certainty about two items: he provided no reply and he gave no proof of his unfounded statements.

Professor Andy Pitman is a computer modeller promoting himself as an expert on climate. He hid from questions. During his retreat he made false accusations. Unsurprisingly, this seems to be a common trick among advocates of global warming. He provides no evidence of his claims. Here are the four email threads:

These people rely directly and/or indirectly on taxpayer funding. If you're a taxpayer, how do you feel when you read their statements and their failure to provide proof of wild claims triggering unfounded alarm in the community?

Government suppressing what it didn't expect?

Is this an attempt to sanitise public perceptions to prevent the media seeing dissenting views?
Feel the frustration and anger in emails one, two and three from calm, rational, highly qualified people who made excellent submissions challenging the basis for the government's proposed tax.
(Names and contact details removed for privacy)
Not only is government not speaking for thousands of citizens who responded to its invitation, it's not even listening. Government is not representing them, it's suppressing their voice.

Registered Post Notice to prominent politicians and academics corrupting public perceptions of climate and of climate science:

For an unconventional approach to holding federal politicians accountable, please visit www.conscious.com.au and read the section entitled Registered Post Notice to prominent politicians and academics corrupting public perceptions of climate and of climate science

Has parliament failed us?

The ALP's 2007 election campaign was based on a monstrous lie: that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming of atmospheric temperatures that ended around 1998. That was described as the greatest moral challenge of our generation.

Kevin Rudd admitted on April 4th, 2011 that Cabinet contains climate sceptics who oppose action on climate. A scientist privately advises that a prominent ALP MP told him directly that he is a sceptic. It's widely known that other cabinet ministers are sceptics.

Why will they not speak? Is it party loyalty? Is it cowardice? Dishonesty? Given the damage to Australia's economy, environment and sovereignty, isn't their silent agreement treason to Australia? Is it contempt of parliament? Isn't it abdication of responsibility to voters that these MP's represent?

The greatest moral challenge of our time is this: will one ALP MP show the courage and integrity to stand up? Surely there are many who desire to leave a positive legacy for their nation, for the once proud workers' party and for their electorate?

Most MP's enter parliament to serve their nation. The system soon engulfs. Surely their hearts will speak to leave their name intact in history?

Malcolm Roberts presented Liberal climate spokesperson Greg Hunt with abundant documented material exposing corruption of climate science. Greg commented that the presentation was one of the best he's seen. He requested and was given extensive supporting material. He voluntarily committed to exploring it in detail.

Three months later Malcolm asked Greg whether Greg had found any error in the material given him. Three times Greg avoided the question by responding that everyone is entitled to their belief.

The Liberals, like the ALP, have been provided extensive material. Tony Abbott has declared his doubt on the science. Speaking with coalition MP's leads Malcolm Roberts to conclude that the Liberals are afraid to confront the media on the corruption of science. If that is correct and they are afraid of the truth, how then can they make a valid claim to lead?

Although their policy will not do the damage to Australia that will be done by the Greens-ALP alliance's carbon dioxide tax, how can Liberals seriously claim to lead?

With only a few exceptions, our politicians are taking advantage of the goodwill and trust of the Australian people. Those politicians are corrupting our nation. They do not deserve our trust.

Faxes sent to members of the House of Representatives on Sunday, October 09, 2011:

All other Liberal and National MP's were sent by email a copy of the fax sent to ALP MPs.

Fax numbers for all ALP, Greens, Independent and three Liberal MPs are available here.

My daughter (15 years of age) signed this fax to the same MPs. Both faxes were sent to each MP's electorate office and Canberra parliamentary office.

Please feel welcome to use Malcolm's fax as a template for your own fax, letter or email to MPs in the House of Reps asking them what they are doing to investigate the known and documented corruption of climate science.

Have MP's and backroom party powerbrokers destroyed Australian governance and made parliament irrelevant?

An observer's report on the second reading of the 'Clean Energy Bill' on 21st September 2011.

Henry Ergas reveals Treasury's advice to government is being withheld from the parliament - the people's assembly. The government is bypassing parliament, making parliament useless.

Treasury is supposed to be serving the public - the voters and citizens. Will MP's do anything to hold public servants in Treasury accountable to restore democracy? Will anything be done to return parliament to serving the people?

The government goes further. Without precedent it seeks to control future governments and people of Australia. Henry Ergas reveals the government's legislation is designed to make it impossible for future governments to reverse the legislation. Government MP's are going against the voters wishes who were promised no carbon tax. Government MP's are controlling future generations and exposing Australia to massive future costs. All needlessly. Unjustifiably. Dishonestly.www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/labor-plants-poison-pills-in-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226138227483

Senator Wong, the previous Minister for Climate Change dismissed the facts when the UN IPCC was exposed for its misrepresentations on Himalayan glaciers. Many serious fundamental problems were exposed including reliance on non-peer-reviewed material in contradiction to the UN IPCC's own claims; an admission by a UN IPCC Lead Author that the UN IPCC's report on Himalayan glaciers was politically driven, not scientific; authors were not experts in their field; the UN IPCC implied certainty that contradicted the actual state of glaciers with many advancing when the UN IPCC claimed the opposite. Yet Penny Wong dismissed these and other fundamental issues even though experts publicly stated that the UN IPCC's claims amount to "a gross misrepresentation".

Senator Wong leapt to defend these unscientific actions apparently before the facts were investigated. Later, even the UN IPCC admitted some of its many serious deliberate misrepresentations Wong made no reported correction of her error.www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead%20elephants.pdf

Keynes said: "When the facts change I change my mind? What do you do sir?"

Two Weeks of Thunder:

Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.

Please send them an email. Most lack the time to read emails. They do though take notice of the volume.
Please call them and speak to them or leave a message with their office to root out the corruption.
Please send a paper letter - typed or hand-written.
Please send a fax.
MP's take note of paper documents.

Congratulate, support and appreciate those already speaking out. The most outspoken include:

2. Motive for climate deception:

Is there one major driver? Why did a small group of UN bureaucrats manipulate the science to fabricate climate alarm from 1972 onwards within the UNEP and then since 1988 through the UN IPCC, UNEP and UNFCCC?

Why did Kevin Rudd and other members of the government at the time pushing to make Australia a signatory of the Copenhagen treaty not tell us about the loss of sovereignty? Why was it not discussed in parliament before Kevin Rudd pushed it so heavily? Why did the Liberals not raise it?

When former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark was booted out of office, why was she rewarded with the UN's third highest job?

Revealing the motive, enables people to make more sense of it all and to realise for themselves.

Remember that Hitler led many sane, sensible Germans to butcher their friends, brothers and sisters.

The goal of control over others has plagued human history. It comes in many disguises, some initially non-violent yet often becoming violent. All, like Hitler and the UN, promise benefits. Control though leads to misery, waste and environmental damage because it suppresses human creativity, initiative and responsibility.

The USA Congress has rejected all proposals for a carbon dioxide tax and proposals for carbon dioxide trading schemes (tax + rationing). Yet the American bureaucracy then sought to regulate CO2 using its EPA, despite being outside the EPA's jurisdiction.

After court cases launched by many states and with recent deep concern about the American economy, President Obama is ceasing the EPA's attempt to subvert democracy.

Why is the Aussie government continuing alone?

The UN seeks to implement the illogical Precautionary Principle. That damages people and cripples societies by ignoring severe costs of not pursuing real environmental and humanitarian issues. If it gets its way the UN will cripple science and progress. That would reverse science and logic.

If the UN succeeds it will mean political and bureaucratic control over science and a return to the Dark Ages. Logic and fairness will be replaced by powerbrokers dictating to people.

Are you aware that Rothschild's bought weather stations? An article from the respected Wall Street Journal:blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/01/31/rothschilds-buy-majority-stake-in-weather-central/
Quote: "Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central L.P., marking a significant expansion of the Rothschild's' investments into media and information."

Sending even more money overseas? Locking Australia into deals. Were these disclosed in the 2010 election campaign? What will this do to our ballooning national debt? (At the start of the Rudd government Treasury Notes on issue from the Australian Treasury (effectively gross Australian debt) amounted to $11 billion. When the Gillard-Brown government was elected in 2010 Treasury Notes had risen to $152 billion. October, 2011 Treasury Notes are at $204 billion, the highest ever level of debt held by any Australian government on behalf of taxpayers.news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-signs-aid-pact-with-world-bank-20110924-1kqe8.html

He's currently highlighting key points in the government's proposed carbon dioxide tax legislation before parliament. When received we'll publish it.

How did they do this?

Humans often fail to notice a serious chain of events when the strategy unfolds gradually in a slow creep. When seen in isolation each change seems insignificant. That is why the overall huge change is not noticed.

Secondly, we trust our politicians. We give them too much power over us. Yet they have abused our trust and our care.

A challenge to future generations:

Ask your kids, grandkids and friends to send us an essay entitled:'What would happen if there was no carbon dioxide on Earth?'
Ask them to research for themselves. We'll publish the most insightful.

Definitions of corruption, fraud, lie, treason:

Corruption:

Debased, containing errors or alterations, as a text;

Marked by venality and dishonesty;

Impure, contaminated, unclean;

Immoral, perverted, depraved;

Decaying, putrid.

To corrupt, corrupted, corrupting:

To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of;

To taint, contaminate; infect;

To change the original form of;

To ruin morally; to pervert;

From the Latin: break to pieces, destroy, ruin.

Corrupt seems the most accurate word covering the destruction of science and integrity by prominent academics, government-funded agencies, some politicians, the UN IPCC and the UN Environmental Program.

Corruption can result from simple mistakes and can take many forms:

Lies;

Tampering with data and grants to fabricate support;

Presenting data out of context;

Financial fraud;

Using unvalidated computer models to present something as it is not;

Unknowingly or deliberately presenting data or omitting data to state or imply an unfounded claim or impression;

Making inadvertent error based on a belief or a perceived fear;

Confusion leading to untruthful claims or statements;

Gullible misrepresentations;

Pretending scientific peer-review has occurred when it has not.

Fraud: presenting something as it is not for personal gain.

Lie: a false statement made deliberately or knowingly or recklessly and creating a false impression. An inaccurate or false statement. A falsehood.

Treason:

Violation of allegiance toward one's sovereign or country; especially the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies;

Any betrayal of trust or confidence, treachery.

From the Latin: a handing over.

Do you want your country handed over to the UN?

Imagine a world government dictating to you from the backrooms of New York or Geneva? After stripping you of property rights and basic freedoms.

Far-fetched? It's happening now. It's underway in Australia.

The UN seems to have its strong agenda. The major international banks aim to profit from the climate scam. It seems that the spreaders of climate alarm are driving legislation to take people's money and regulate people to control their behaviour. That would appear to be treasonous, wouldn't it? Endangering Australia's governance and undermining Australia's sovereignty through abdication of authority to UN treaties based on corrupted science is an act of treason isn't it?

Forgiveness and Action:

People ask why all six main pages of our web site invite people to forgive.

We recognise that on issues revealed on this page that people across Australia are feeling very angry and confused. People express a wide range of feelings including fear, guilt, frustration, resentment, apathy, and doubt. That's a dangerous mix.

These and other feelings reveal people's unmet need for truth, understanding, reassurance, security, confidence, hope, and clarity. And freedom.

The core of our voluntary work is protecting freedom - every person's birthright. Freedom to pursue:

Physical health and wellness;

Environmental sustainability and cleanliness;

Material comfort and economic security on a planet blessed with abundance and peopled with unlimited creativity, ingenuity and initiative;

Free thought and expression;

Enjoyable respectful, loving relationships as we choose;

Family bonds and nurture;

Lawful and responsible acquisition, use and sharing of property;

Free association and movement across community, nation and planet;

Spiritual enlightenment exploring within and outside Self;

Free expression through work;

Choice in every aspect of our lives including energy and industry while respecting and being accountable for impact on others;

Life in accord with values cherished in human hearts and civilisation.

It is the right of all people to freely pursue fulfilment of universal human needs, including freedom.

Fulfilling these needs for freedom is not sufficient for freedom though if we remain hostage to the Human Condition - our ego's value judgments. Understanding this and rising above the ego enables us to be truly free even when surrounded by turmoil. We can then be free to responsibly and effectively address the greatest moral challenge of our time.

A more detailed discussion on the importance of forgiveness is available here.

Humans are blessed with well-developed reasoning. Yet we retain primal feelings such as fear. Our mind is structured so that emotions can easily overcome logic. This combination means that fundamentally, we "see" with our subjective mind, not with our eyes.

When ruled by the mind's delusional construct - the ego - our mind interprets situations using value judgments ingrained in formative childhood years. Those perceptions ingrain separation from others. They can trap us in unconscious reactive patterns. Without realising it, we are then captive to others - under their control.

Yet we sense something grander. When connected with Nature's majesty or when in love we break free of value judgments. Our lover can do no wrong. We see no need to argue. We experience the power of love. Wise elders, enlightened sages and famous poets throughout the ages confirm this.

The ego uses fear, guilt and anger to reinforce the separation it craves as essential to sustain itself. Sometimes that fear is sub-conscious. Sometimes it is subtle. Sometimes it is rampant. The result remains the same: misery.

To be completely free, people seek freedom from ego, the return to our real Self and to love. We can always return to reality and love - if we consciously choose.

We all make mistakes. Reading on this page though of the mistakes and errors pushing an ideological agenda, people can understandably react with anger. When the extent of freedom's erosion is realised people understandably become agitated. Realising the betrayal of national governance by major political parties, some people react by feeling helpless and dispirited. Many feel loss from perceived theft of basic freedoms and rights.

The seriousness of this situation in which our nation has been placed means that we cannot afford the waste of hatred, anger and emotional violence. Instead, have compassion for those who feel the need to lie to achieve their aims. Forgive: look beyond our judgmental interpretation of their actions to see people's reality, the essence they share with us all. By being in touch with our own essence we receive clearer and wiser guidance. We become stronger and healthier to more effectively address issues to protect our freedom.

Forgiveness is often misunderstood. It's commonly thought to be pardoning another person for the hurts and sins we perceive they committed against us. Used in this way it's really another word for blame. It entrenches separation. Prevents accountability. Prevents conscious choice. Thus, value judgments impair our assessment of situations.

Forgiveness is simply the absence of all value judgments that drive narrow perceptions that create and sustain separation and alienation.

We invite people to set aside value judgments by truly forgiving. Then, free from prejudices and our ego's tricks to separate and alienate, we can more clearly identify our unmet universal needs and identify how to meet those needs.

Forgiveness does not imply condoning violence, oppression or disrespect. It means firstly bringing clarity to our self by forgiving - by refraining from making value judgments of others. Freedom from value judgments enables real accountability to end violence, oppression, dishonesty or disrespect.

When freed from our alienating value judgments our mind and heart are free to use their talents to address the situation whether that be to protect our self or prevent recurrence or restore integrity or ...

The choice is ours: anger and reaction to be under the control of others, or, clarity, freedom, effectiveness and love. Regardless of our situation we are always free to make that choice. Being free within enhances protecting material freedom.

Every person is doing the best they can. They are meeting needs they perceive. Although we can see blatant lies, even those lying are doing so because they think they're doing what's necessary and optimal.

We all make mistakes. Yet the depth, breadth and nature of the corruption of science are startling. Nevertheless, ceasing value judgments leaves our mind clear to tackle the issue instead of wasting energy and clouding the mind in hate and anger.

We can then address the greatest moral challenge of our time - the corruption of our democracy and politics. These are destroying national governance and are the greatest threat to our national sovereignty since world war two.

We can address the greatest threat to our global environment: the attempt to make carbon into currency because when the element upon which all living things are built has a commercial value without the responsibility of personal property rights, all ecosystems suddenly have a commercial value that makes them subject to manipulation and irresponsible exploitation for personal gain and control over others.
Italicised words from Canadian environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon.

We face imposition of artificial bureaucratic control mechanisms falsely camouflaged as 'Carbon Trading markets'. These enable bureaucratic control representing and hiding vested interests, particularly major international bankers.

Instead, we can ensure efficient use of resources with real market mechanisms driven by millions of independent, caring hearts and minds unshackled from bureaucratic control.

Accountability comes only through freedom of choice. Freedom and love comes only through forgiveness.

Forgive. If not for others, do it for our self. Everything of value that we give sincerely is automatically reflected as a gift to us. A smile brings joy to others - and to our self. Loving others - brings love to us. Freeing others from our own value judgments and labels - frees us from value judgments.

By forgiving others we forgive our self.

Take Action

Considering the depth and extent of the misrepresentations from advocates of a tax on carbon dioxide, we suggest treating those advocates with empathy and compassion for their misrepresentations of science. They have deep unmet needs. We need to try to understand.

Then contact federal MP's. Ask them to consider the facts and vote against the tax on carbon dioxide, Nature's trace gas essential for life on Earth.